[bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for yourreview

Thu Dec 10 15:54:18 UTC 2009

May further post on this but quick clarification:

Transfer was a position discussed and agreed at the Seoul BC meeting.

IPC have been supportive of the transfer option in their written comments, on STI calls and in off line discussions with Mike and me.

Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin at butera-andrews.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:13:25 
To: icann at rodenbaugh.com<icann at rodenbaugh.com>; bc-gnso at icann.org<bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your
 review

Mike:

I don't recall taking a position in Seoul in favor of transfer being available in the URS. I do recall saying that ICA might be open to making it mandatory again if the final package had adequate balance and registrant protections, and we now have no objections on that front.

We didn't know in Seoul about the WIPO and CAC expedited UDRP efforts, and those developments have crystallized the issue and led to ICA's decision that the issue of transfer under an expedited UDRP should await comprehensive UDRP reform. Of course, the STI-RT recommendation that the URS be subjected to regular review and possible revision gives everyone a chance to see how it works in practice, with the possibility of a transfer option being made available down the line.

I do appreciate the hard work that you and Zahid put into this. However, the IPC representatives on the STI-RT are very vigorous proponents of trademark rights and I do not believe that they would agree with your characterization that they have caved in.

Regards,
Philip

Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann at rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:21 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

Hi Phil,

Re the transfer option for the URS, why has ICA’s position changed since the BC’s Seoul meeting?

Zahid and I do not know why the IPC and others are caving in to a compromise that is likely to do very little to alleviate the problem of cybersquatting in new gTLDs, particularly when we (Zahid especially) worked so hard to get important concessions from so many parties along the way.  To see them discarded at the end for no reason has been a tremendous disappointment for us, and we believe should be very disappointing for all members, including the ICA.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:11 PM
To: zahid at dndrc.com; bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

I very much appreciate the fact that the BC designated me in Seoul to serve as an alternate delegate to the STI-RT, despite the well known ICA differences with the IRT, and with the BC position on its work methodology and product.

That said, and for the record, the ICA does not agree with the BC position as regards the work of the STI-RT.

We have no specific disagreement with the BC minority position regarding the Trademark Clearinghouse. But we would note that the BC has registered 13 separate minority positions in regard to a proposal that the IPC has not registered a single objection to -- and wonder how it has come about that a constituency that is supposed to represent the broad interests of businesses conducted via the Internet has arrived at harder line positions on trademark issues than those of the constituency devoted to IP interests. (In comparison, only one other minority position was filed, on a single issue, by the RySG.)

We strongly dissent in regard to the BC position that the URS should provide a means to transfer a domain. The IRT proposed the URS as a supplement to the UDRP which, in exchange for a less expensive and expedited process, would lead to suspension of a domain rather than a transfer. Again, the BC is seeking to expand upon a proposal that the IPC has accepted. The ICA is not opposed to the consideration of an expedited, fast track UDRP -- so long as it that occurs within the context of a comprehensive UDRP reform PDP, rather than through a perversion of the limited scope of Supplemental Rules as has been proposed by the CAC and is anticipated from WIPO.

Thank you for consideration of our views.

Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil [zahid at dndrc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:48 PM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
FYI.

Mike and me are drafting a minority report based upon existing BC positions culminating in the consensus at the Seoul meetings and comments from the list.

Unfortunately it seems we will probably have one day to submit this. We will be able to post the draft by tomorrow morning and look forward to comments tomorrow and will at day end submit to the STI.

Comments today so we can use them in our draft would be appreciated and would help speed matters up.

Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

________________________________
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:30:23 -0800
To: 'GNSO STI'<gnso-sti at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for a very productive call today.  Attached for your review is the fourth draft of the STI Report, which attempts to pick up our discussions today.

I believe we are very close to a final version of this the report and would appreciate your comments or revisions by the close of business today, so that I can prepare the final report tomorrow morning.    Also, please send your minority reports by tomorrow morning to ensure inclusion in the version that will be circulated to the GNSO Council.   As discussed, if you need more time to draft a minority report, you would need to send to me next week, so that it can be forwarded to the Board after the GNSO Council vote (if successful) next Thursday.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091210/3b6cd9a0/attachment.html>